All appeals filed by A, B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant A and B’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment for each of them) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above punishments and Defendant C, and two years of suspended execution) against the Defendants by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, Defendants B and the Prosecutor together.

The fact that both the Defendants recognize the crime and reflects the mistake in depth, the victim and the victim agree with the original agreement, and the victim’s guardian does not want to punish the Defendants, and the Defendants do not have any criminal record, are favorable to the Defendants.

However, in the instant case, the Defendants, who are juveniles with intellectual disability and who are socially absolutely weak, have sexual intercourse over several occasions by using their intellectual disability, and the nature of the crime is very poor, the possibility of social criticism is very high, and the Defendants’ crime seems to seriously hinder the sound growth of the victims ageed due to the Defendants’ crime, etc. are particularly disadvantageous circumstances to the Defendants.

In addition, considering the various circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, and motive and background of the instant crime, and the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee, it is not deemed unfair because the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too heavy or uneasible.

B. In full view of the fact that the Defendant C’s instant crime was committed once more, that there is no particular criminal history other than the fine imposed once due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, that the Defendant’s mistake was divided in depth, and that the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee do not seem to be unreasonable because the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible.

C. The Defendants and the Prosecutor’s above assertion are without merit.

3. Conclusion, Defendant A, B, and Prosecutor’s appeal are without merit.